State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uday Ratra vs Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. on 18 April, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 18.04.2013 First Appeal No. 1077/12 Shri Uday Ratra Appellant S/o Shri M.S. Ratra, R/o Vasundhara Farm, C/o SPM IA Dharuhera, Haryana 123110. Versus 1.M/s Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. Respondent No.1 314, Time Tower, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002. 2.Group-4 Security Services Ltd. Respondent No.2 Panchwati 82-A, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122016, Haryana. CORAM Ms. Salma Noor Member
Mr. V.K. Gupta Member(Judicial)
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Mr. V.K. Gupta, Member(Judicial)(Oral)
1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No. 411/08 is directed against the order dated 22.10.12 of the District Forum-II dismissing the complaint of the appellant.
2. We have heard the appellant present in person at the admission stage.
3. The main grievance of the appellant is that while boarding the airlines of the OP No.1 on 23.11.06, he was beaten by the security staff of the OP and multiple injuries of punching to face, upper body, abdomen, kicking lower limbs and twisting upper limbs and pulling of scalp hair by the Group 4 staff of the OP No.2 to the complainant on the plane for 30 minutes in the presence of the cabin crew and finally the complainant was pushed down from the aircraft ladder into the airport tarmac resulting in broken front tooth, severe bruising and scratches over entire body continuing psychiatric illness, post traumatic shock disorder, depression, anxiety and insomnia. It is further alleged that on 28.01.07, the second assault was made by Group 4 staff on the plane, causing punching injuries to his face, upper body, abdomen, kicking lower limbs and twisting upper limbs and pulling of scalp hair for two hours intermittently in presence of the cabin crew who again ignored his complaint. For these criminal activities alleged to have been done by the Group 4 staff of the OP, the complainant claimed Rs. 20 lacs compensation together with interest.
4. The District Forum vide order dated 22.10.12 held that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, dismissed the complaint on 22.10.12 against which the complainant preferred the appeal.
5. We have gone through the entire record and, at the out set, we may mention that the District Forum has recorded a very comprehensive finding and has taken very legal view. In order to attract the provision of Section 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, we may state that it is necessary to see as to whether the complainant is a consumer. As per the provision of Section 2(1)(b) and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, only a person, who can be termed as a consumer, can make a complaint. A beneficiary of the goods/services in the common parlance is a consumer under the Act. When a service is found deficient by a consumer, he can make a complaint under the Act. Thus, primary requirement is that the matter must fall within the definition of service and it must entail a deficiency as per the norms given by the Act. Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines service means service of any description which is made available to the potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or loading or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but that does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Service may be of any description and pertain to any section, if it satisfies the following criteria :-
(a) Service is made available to the potential users, i.e. service not only to the actual users but also to those who are capable of using it.
(b) It should not be under a contract of personal service.
(c) When we talk about service under the Consumer Protection Act, we take it as regular commercial transaction. To determine the term of service, the real test is whether the person against whom the complaint is made performs a service for consideration which is sought by a potential user.
6. Now the next question comes what is meant by deficiency of service?
Section 2(1(g) of the Act provides that deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Beside, such quality and manner of performance of service should have been required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise. Thus, the deficiency must be in relation any service.
The words.in relation to any service in the definition signifies that the deficiency is always in terms of service. In other words, if the grievance pertains to a matter which does not fall in the definition of service, the concept of deficiency would not apply.
7. Admittedly, there were two incidents, one took place on 23.11.06 and another took place on 28.01.07. We fail to understand as to why these two incidents of the similar nature took place with the complainant only. There is ample evidence of the material on record as pointed out by the District Forum that the complainant was escorted off the aircraft due to abusive and threatening behaviour by the security staff members in accordance with the airline safety and cautious rules. There is flight quality report dated 23.11.06, which apparently shows, and proves that, the complainant was traveling on seat No. 65 DEG had caused so much trouble to the security during boarding by shouting at the top of his voice, struggling against his restraints and biting his escort that he alarmed everyone in the C-Zone. On this uncalled for activity including using abusive language, a decision was taken by the security staff to off load him as the crew head no man tower to get that the complainant and other passengers who started crying that if the complainant remained on the board they would get off. There is another flight quality report dated 28.01.07, which proves that, complainant was very rude and obnoxious and therefore the crew had to deal with casting, screaming, personal space being invaded with wagging fingers and shaking fists.
8. During the course of the arguments, the appellant present in person, has admitted that he lodged FIR with regard to the alleged incidents committed by the security staff at the relevant Police Station, but nothing has been done. Considering the entire facts as well as the circumstances and the activities created by the appellant himself in the boarding plane, goes to show that it is the criminal act which is beyond the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, we are of the considered opinion that appellant cannot be said to be a consumer.
9. Admittedly, both the incidents took place at Heathrow Airport which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Admittedly, the complainant was detained by Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre, which is a Govt. Agency of the United Kingdom. No cognizance can be taken off any criminal activity which took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of this country.
10. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the District Forum in this regard and needs no interference. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
12. A certified copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum, and thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room (Salma Noor) Member (V.K. Gupta) Member(Judicial) ysc